No, I don’t agree. Appeals to emotion have no place in developing aggregate policy.
But policy constraints on the role of federal government have a front-row seat in discussions of policy.
Government rules force emergency rooms to provide care to patients, including Uncle Billy, who cannot afford it. When you or your insurer pays for care at that hospital, the prices paid are inflated to cover Uncle Billy’s care. Are these rules a proper role of government?
Some of the arguments you raise in this debate seem disconnected. How does the money paid to the U.N. (correctly stated or not) affect its studies?
Mandatory “tithes” to help the afflicted are extracted in all other developed countries. Since voluntary charity will be insufficient to cover the very high costs of modern healthcare, the following leaves us in doubt about your stance on Christian virtues. Is it your contention that until Christian religious monuments are restored to public spaces, U.S. Christians are absolved from such charity?
No. And again, since this context was lost above, I mean this is not a proper role of federal government.
There is only a tangential relationship. I intended to convey that if my shiftless brother-in-law needs my help every month to pay his rent, I am unlikely to credit his can’t-lose investment advice.
My stance is: Christian commands to do charity are not valid grounds for formation of public policy in a secular nation. If this were not a secular nation, but one in which Christian motives were valid, then – something of a tautology – Christian motives would be valid as grounds for public policy.
Not quite sure what’s unclear.
Agreed, 100%.
“…a country benefits most when most of its citizens are healthy and financially solvent.” Kobal2 #279
“…promote the general welfare” mission statement of the Constitution
Crane
Bricker,
Is it your position that?:
a) it is not the role of the Federal government to provide healthcare to its constituents
b) it is the role of the State government to provide healthcare to its constituents
c) you are in support of UHC (entitlement) if enacted as a federal constitutional amendment
I’m trying to understand your position, so kindly elaborate beyond yes/no answers.
Thanks.
(a) correct
(b) it’s a proper role, but it’s not a mandatory one
(c) yes
When a law has been constitutionally passed and judicially reviewed, then it becomes a role of the federal government, full stop. That enmootens your insistence that it’s “not a proper role of government”, a statement which then becomes a philosophical fig leaf for “I don’t like that policy and I refuse to discuss the reasons.”
Bear in mind… it’s entirely legit to say “I don’t like this law.” I dislike the fuck out of the House version of the bill. I’m happy to list my reasons, and I won’t waste your time with the tautology that “They shouldn’t be doing this because I think that’s not a thing they should be doing.”
Thank you.
Can you help me understand why it’s proper for State level but not Federal level? Furthermore, if the goals are better healthcare for all, what compels your change in position if it’s UHC mandated by a constitutional amendment vs. an ACA type vehicle?
It’s not precisely true that the feds require emergency rooms to provide care. They require them to do so as a condition of receiving payments from the Dept of Health and Human Services. You can operate a hospital without receiving such federal funds, although in practice very few do.
Let me illustrate by way of a companion question:
If the goal is to catch criminals, why do we have a Fourth Amendment?
The answer is that the goal is indeed to catch criminals, but it’s not the only goal. We also have a goal to live in a society in which we are free from unreasonable searches. Sometimes, those two goals are in tension with one another.
Now, with that in mind: if the goals are better healthcare for all, what compels your change in position if it’s UHC mandated by a constitutional amendment vs. an ACA type vehicle?
The answer is that the goal indeed is better healthcare for all, but it’s not the only goal. We also have a goal to apply the framework of federalism to our jointly sovereign government.
This is especially important because you seem genuinely puzzled about the issue, as evidenced by your first question, “Can you help me understand why it’s proper for State level but not Federal level?”
The answer to that question is: I don’t know, but I will try. To start, I’d like to ask you if you understand that the authority the federal government has is different in several key ways from the authority states have. The federal government has only enumerated powers, while the states have plenary legislative powers.
Can I ask if you understand that concept? Could you explain it to someone else, if asked?
This would be more analogous to requiring people to attend a higher education facility for 2-4 years, while providing free or subsidized tuition, and also creating standards of education that would make Trump U not fulfill the requirements.
So, the analogy of forcing you to go to Trump U is even more flawed, as Trump U would be analogous to the healthcare plans that did not actually provide you with any sort of useful coverage that were eliminated in the ACA.
There are many reasons it could fail in California. It is a large state, sure, but it is still not a country. It cannot print its own money, it cannot go into debt, it cannot charge as high a tax rate as the feds do, and it cannot control its immigration policy.
Pretty much the only way it could work is if part of the bill says that if someone from another state that does not have medical reciprocity with california shows up at a hospital or doctor without money to pay or insurance, then they will simply let them die on the curb (maybe put in a trench out back so people can conveniently die in a mass grave), otherwise, your citizens in your state that you fought against getting healthcare for will be showing up at california hospitals for the treatment that you refused them.
You are right, they are not asking, they are demanding by passing laws that will do exactly that.
Electric bill should not be enough. You should have to show your state tax returns for at least 2 years to receive medical treatment in California. Otherwise, the people in the states that refuse to provide healthcare for their residents will flood california’s system, and that failure will be pointed at by those in this thread as to why a federal UHC can’t work. The only way a state by state healthcare system works is if the states are willing to let the residents of other states die. I personally see no problem with this, as the come from states where their legislatures are willing to watch them die in order to provide tax cuts to the wealthy, but for humanitarian reasons, it would be difficult to condemn people to death because of the state they live in.
Did you really just compare the UN to a shiftless brother-in-law? You think the UN needs to go get a job and move out? How does that even work?
If you want to compare the UN to anything, compare it to you HOA. You may not like all the rules, you may not like the HOA fees (especially since, you being by far the wealthiest individual and having the largest house and using the most of the resources), are expected to pay a higher fee than your smaller neighbors.
And, in any case, that’s pretty much pure ad-hominem. You use the complaint that we have to pay the UN to explain why its studies are flawed.
Because you don’t have to be a christian to be a good person? You don’t have to be a christian to say that that Jesus guy, whether you believe in him or not, had some good ideas. Because you don’t have to be a christian nation to be a compassionate nation.
However, I think more the point is the hypocrisy of someone who claims to follow someone who says that you should love your neighbor as yourself, but is willing to watch his neighbor die so that he can save a buck on his taxes.
One question, in your view, would it be the proper role of the government to provide a public option?
Not mandatory, maybe not even subsidized, other than the savings of economies of scale and risk sharing, but that anyone and everyone who is a legal US resident can buy into.
We are not a nation founded on principles by virtue of them being Christian principles. We are, however, a nation founded on principles, many of which are claimed by Christians as being Christian principles. These principles are not exclusively Christian, being claimed also by most other religions and moral frameworks, but they are still Christian.
For example, caring for the needy is a principle that is espoused by most religions, including Christianity. It is also espoused by most nations. Some nations espouse it as a principle because of its status with respect to some religion, while other nations (including our own) espouse it because they believe it to be a good principle regardless of what any particular religion thinks. Since Christianity is a religion that espouses caring for the needy, one might conclude that a person who is Christian also espouses that principle, even though one might not conclude that a person who espouses that principle is necessarily Christian.
Also, a question: You say that you would support government-run health care given a Constitutional amendment expressly authorizing it, but that you do not support it in the current environment. But in the current environment, the relevant authority (the Supreme Court of the United States) has already found it to be Constitutional. Given that it is already Constitutional, what difference would the amendment make?
A country also benefits most when most of its citizens are dressed well, have adequate housing, and good nutrition. Also when they are groomed nicely, have adequate transportation, and have good jobs. Also when they are well-educated and are provided good entertainment to fill their leisure hours. And don’t forget moderate participation in physical activities to keep them healthy.
So, then, according to the “promote general welfare” mission statement of the Constitution, the Federal government should be responsible for everything. Including giving people quality clothes, running grocery stores, producing good shows on TV, and building and staffing sports/exercise facilities in all the neighborhoods.
The federal government shouldn’t be involved in prisons, therefore I propose a bill to release all federal prisoners.
I submit that if you understand what’s wrong with that argument, then you’ll see the main problem with AHCA even if you accept the premise that the federal government should have no role in healthcare.
Then the appeal in question shouldn’t have mentioned Christianity.
That’s not my position, inasmuch as I readily acknowledge the financial impact may well be greater my way, since uninsured patients’ costs are passed on to me in the form of higher facility costs.
Yes.
A constitutional amendment commands 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4ths of the states’ support. It’s safe to say that there is broad national consensus for its goals if it is ratified.
Since I’m not saying that the ACA was unconstitutional, but merely unwise as a role of government, the commitment of such a large swath of legislators would be a signal to me that the mood of the country strongly supported the wisdom, and that the proper process was followed to enshrine the role permanently as a federal one.
ISTM that, formation of public policy aside, Christian commands to do charity can be extrapolated to Christian commands to be motivated by a benevolent (from the Latin for “to desire good”) and beneficent (from the Latin for “to do good”) spirit towards all, particularly the less well-off. Under this rubric, it’s not hard to expect support for public policies that are “charitable” in character.